SSM Comes to Maryland
Today, Judge M. Brooke Murdock declared Maryland’s law defining marriage between a man and a woman unconstitutional because it is unlawful sex discrimination under Maryland’s constitution.
Judge Murdock followed the yellow brick road laid out before her by the four Masschusetts Justices, usurping the legislative (and the people’s) perogative to define social policy and codify that policy through the constitutionally mandated process. Murdock based her “constitutional” decision enthroning gay marriage by claiming Maryland’s marriage law treated men and women in a discriminatory manner based upon sex. She reasoned that because a man cannot marry a man, Maryland discriminates because it restricts a gay or lesbian’s choice to marry someone of the same sex. But her supposition is mistaken. Marriage is open equally to male and female alike, but they must marry someone of the opposite sex. An individual’s homosexuality–a choice to sexually align with a member of the same sex–does not take the place of one’s gender identity. Murdock’s transmogrification of gender is indefensible.
Rejecting the state’s argument that a male/female coupling provides the optimal environment for child rearing, Murdock plunked:
This Court is unable to agree [that a traditional married couple provides the optimal environment for children] because the vast number of assumptions necessary to do so, exceeds the scope of reasonable legislative speculation.
Wow! You can’t get any more activist than that. It is revealing that Murdock cites absolutely nothing to support her conclusion. Then, to put the icing on the her judicial cake, Murdock deduces from the legislative speculaion that social morality does not matter:
Although tradition and societal values are important, they cannot be given so much weight that they alone will justify a discriminatory statutory classification.
In other words, neither the longevity of marriage nor the societal values that undergird heterosexual marriage can bar gays and lesbians from marrying.
This decision is yet another case of a judge who actively legislates her morality from the bench and lectures the legislature for their outlandish belief that social values and tradition matter in determining marriage policy. What a joke.